I'm not sure I've ever started a theology topic, which is weird, considering how much I love it and how opinionated I am. But lately, I've been pondering a difficult topic that might come up in my writing sometime, and I thought I'd get y'all's opinions.

It's the question of how does a leader consider his highest duty?

In the film Air Force One, the President of the United States basically jeopardizes not only his country, but other countries as well, to save his wife and his daughter. We know that a man has a duty to protect the weak, and especially his own family. But doesn't he also have a duty to his country and to others?

How about in Spiderman (which I haven't seen) where Spiderman is given the option to save either his girlfriend or a whole bunch of children? That's a little different, because it's his girlfriend rather than his wife, I guess, but let's pretend it was his wife. Is his higher duty to his wife or to other people? (I understand in the movie he saves both, which is lame, but anyway...)

Do you have any ideas on how, Scripturally, to determine which duty to others comes first for a man? I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Well for me my duty is to Christ and His Kingdom first and foremost. This interprets all my others. After that friends and family.

Oh yes, amen! What I'm especially wondering about here though, is someone who has been given specific responsibilities for a country, or some other group of people. The president, for example, has responsibilities for his family AND for his country. So if he can only protect one... which is he to chose?

My gut reaction without thinking very deeply (for my own protection) is that his family comes first as that is a God-given role, while other things are after that since they are more man-ordained-ish (I think)...and God is in control no matter what which should help us be able to focus on the thing we've been told to focus on by God (our family) and let Him take care of the rest--even if it means a lot of people dieing... again, this is my gut reaction so I could be wrong, but I think that's my view on the matter.

There's a story (not sure if it's true) about a guy whose job it was to work a drawbridge with train tracks on it and his son had come with him to work once and the drawbridge was up and the boy was playing next to it (apparently in a spot where he'd be crushed if his dad worked the drawbridge), and the train was coming and couldn't stop and the dad couldn't tell his son to move in time to work the bridge--so he worked the bridge and let his son get killed in it in order to save the other people... I can see how that is a sort of type of christ, and very heroic--to the people, but I don't feel like he fulfilled his duty to his son. *shrugs* I don't think I know enough to be very confident on this though I guess, and I'm not trying to sound arrogant.

Family. Family over country every time everywhere. And, at least for me, country isn't even an allegiance to worry about, but in the case of a country leader: family.

The country wins for me. It's personal sacrifice. If I were Spider Man, which would be cool, I'd have saved the kids and let gf die however it was to be.
Just think this way: that bus is full of, let's say 30, sons and daughters, friends, best friends, brothers, sisters, grandsons, grandaughters... etc. My gf is one gf, one sister, one daughter, etc. Am I going to be selfish and choose to move the pain away from myself to a far greater number of people, or take it on myself and limit the damage? I see a type of Christ in there. He took all the pain to Himself, the Father took all the pain to Himself, instead of leaving it on untold millions who would have been so estranged from God that God never would have needed to mind. Personal sacrifice, taking the hurt on you instead of bajillions of others.

"Allegiance" isn't really relevant here, in my view. What is, is that a leader has deliberately taken the responsibility for the country (or whatever) on himself, generally with an oath (whether that specific promise applies to the specific situation or not).


The thing is, "personal sacrifice" doesn't work very well as a justification for that choice in the quandary proposed here---"greater love hath no man than ... to lay down his life for his friends" doesn't apply to laying someone else's life down. (Which is why this is such a difficult problem to think about.) Christ went to the cross by his own eternally-standing choice, and he and the Father are one, neither of which is the case here.

That is a good point...so it would depend on the nature of the vow, whether it transcends the vows already spoken to his wife/family as a husband/father or not.



I like kingjon's points in response to this...you're not giving your own life, but someone else's.
Also, you're not talking about someone whom you vowed to protect and support with your life...I really think that in the case of family you are supposed to take responsibility for your family's safety first, not because of selfishness, but because of obligation, loyalty, faith, and responsibility.

All of you have good points, which is why I've been torn over this issue. Yes, the family is God's first institution, and one man has direct responsibility for. On the other hand, God sets rulers/leaders over nations as well, and gives them responsibility for that. On the one hand, someone should be willing to sacrifice their own feelings and their own dearest treasures for others, but on the other hand, feelings don't really matter one way or the other and we're not talking about any old treasure, but the life of someone else, someone God has given you to protect.

It's complicated, which was why I was hoping to start a good discussion on it, and it seems I have.

Here's a question... can anyone think of a Scriptural example of either side? Choosing family first, or country first? Any other thoughts are of course welcome, also!

*listens for more discussion*

The closest I can think of are the story (2 Samuel 24) of when God gave David a choice between three years of famine, or three months of fleeing from his enemies, or three days of plague (which is not necessarily an example we'd want to follow) and at least a few cases (starting with Phineas son of Aaron) where people chose between their family and God (which is something else entirely, and shouldn't even need thinking about).

A somewhat related point to the original question is the question of the proper role of government. I haven't seen either of the movies you referenced, but whether the government should be allowed enough power that the lives of large numbers of people could even conceivably be in the leader's hands is a question that's under much debate. ("Somewhat related" because in this world, and in fiction set in this world, we have to deal with what is, and in fiction we can posit pretty much any situation.)

Ah, a topic I have been looking at for my trilogy. *watches *

You should poke it to keep it alive!

*has saved a draft of a reply, but isn't sure if it's really on-topic*

I am much more happy to let you all discuss it.

Oh no...

*chuckles * And now all the Betas wonder what I've got up my sleeve.

What about the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? (The fact that he doesn't actually end up sacrificing him is irrelevant in this situation.)
*fetches Bible*
That's in Genesis 22. Now, technically, that's choosing between God and family, not country and family. However, it can relate, in a way.
If the person is in a position of command due to human actions -i.e., we elect the Prime Minister -than his duty to his family would come first, because that is the position in which God has placed him first and foremost.
Say the leader was in a position of command because God had called them to take up that role. An example of this would be Saul, in the Old Testament. He is called by God, through Samuel, to take on the mantle of leading Israel. In that case, I would say he should do what is best for his people, not just his family, because God has given him this responsibility trusting that he will do what is right for his people.

All authorities (Prime minister, president, etc...) have been put in place by God: Romans 13:1 'Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.' So both duties are God-given, which takes us back to where we started.

1 Tim 5:8 sums up my views on this.

To be honest with you, I find it shocking that anyone would consider putting country (especially if your country is, like the US, a geopolitical abstraction) ahead of his own flesh and blood.

So would this be a reason why Christians should not go into politics? Or should that be a different topic?

That would be a different topic, but you could certainly start it. I have many political friends, so I would disagree with Christians not going into politics.

Also my first reaction. *Glares at Airi*

I have thoughts on this, but I'll post next week about it. Poke me if I forget.

I can't wait to hear your thoughts, Elanor! I'm watching this thread, yes, I just don't have a lot of conclusions to add at the moment... though I might put in to the person who said they would be shocked at someone putting country over family... shock has absolutely nothing to do with it. I want Scriptural support for any argument.

That was me, and I gave it. But Scripture isn't the only source for morality, y'know.

Sorry, I was in a hurry and forgot who it was.

Would you clarify by saying what other source you believe is a legitimate one for determining reality, please? Just so we can find out if everyone is on the same page or not.

Really when you get down to it the question is morality or instinct. It would be your instinct to place your family before your country, whereas morally it would be wrong to choose your family over the majority. I would say whatever saves the most lives regardless of your 'calling' is the better option.

OK. Scripture is definitely an authority on morality, don't get me wrong. But I also believe that certain moral truths can be learned independently of Scripture, through philosophy, for example. I was not, just in case you're wondering, claiming my shock was a conclusive argument, or even an argument at all, for my position. I may be able to turn it into an argument, but I don't claim it is one now.

I also believe that the Holy Tradition of the Church is a moral authority, but I doubt any of you will agree and it's outside the scope of this thread to prove it to you, so I'll try not to appeal to that.

To summarize, then, in this thread, I will use:

1. Scripture

and

2. Philosophy

to support my arguments. I'll try to avoid Tradition.

Not necessarily.



Here we agree.



OK. That's your opinion. Now why should it be mine? What's the reasoning?



Why? Why should I value the lives of strangers above those of my own family, especially in the light of 1 Tim 5:8?

Samstarrett: I think you have a very good point. 1 Timothy 5:8 is a good verse to bring up in this discussion.

This is a question that is hard to answer from a Biblical stance. Not a lot of places does the Bible talk about such things. In the Old Testament, David protects his children from death even after they disobey the law (Amnon: 2 Samuel 13. Absalom: 2 Samuel 18).
However, the Old Testament is not as relevant as the New Testament. In the New Testament, it is harder to find references of this sort. Not a lot does Jesus talk about the government. When he does, he says, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what belongs to God." (Matthew 22:21) Or something else that is not relevant to this discussion. He might say something about it, but I can't think of it now.
Paul talks about the government in Romans (since Rome was the city where the government was stationed). He says, "All of you must be willing to obey completely those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God." (Romans 13:1) That still does not help the discussion. However, if you look closer at that passage (Romans 13) you will find that Paul tells us to 'Obey completely those who rule over you' yet he never speaks as if we are the ones ruling. This is probably because at that time Christians were not in government, nor had any means to reach that status. Though, if I might point out, I believe the church leaders asked all believers in government to step down so as not to be put in such moral dilemmas.
My opinion on the matter (but I have little Biblical back-up) is that, if forced into such a situation, save your family (because of 1 Timothy 5:8). Otherwise, do your best to remain out of such areas as might put you into such a dilemma. An expression I've heard is 'If you want to keep from falling off a cliff, keep far away from the edge'.

Does that help to answer the question?

I don't have time for the whole response right now, but I'd just like to point out that that's not true. They didn't ask St. Constantine the Great to step down as Emperor so they could be a persecuted minority again, did they?

I'm with Sam on this one, at the moment, in this regard.

Josiah, biblically, where do you find this position upheld?

Actually, it was when Constantine became emperor when everything changed. When faced with the decision of whether or not to let Constantine remain mayor, the church chose to allow him to remain. Perhaps they wished a refrain from the persecution and believed that Constantine was going to enact the 'Kingdom of God' Jesus had referred to (though I think He was referring to the Kingdom he would bring about at the end of the world). Through Constantine becoming Emperor, Christianity was forced upon everyone in Roman Territory (leaving them to become Christians or die) and Christianity forsook their pacifistic stance to bring about Christ's earthly kingdom through physical warfare, the right of an earthly kingdom.

This discussion about Christians and politics is interesting, but it's getting dangerously close to offtopic. Unless it's kept directly connected to how this would affect a Christian's loyalties between family and country--perhaps one of you should start a separate thread in which to discuss it.

Yet, Christianity in politics is relevant because if Christians are not in government then they will not be faced with these problems. Sometimes we are looking for answer to questions which needn't be asked.
If someone can find another Biblical answer to this question (whether to choose country or family) please post it.

Please get a different history book. St. Constantine the Great did not make Christianity the official religion of the empire, and if you have any evidence that laypeople were required to give up their Roman jobs on conversion, I'd love to see it. I happen to know that a fair number of Christians continued to serve in the Roman army, even during the persecutions, whose names I can produce if need be.

Yes, but the main question is "how does a leader consider his highest duty?"
I don't think it's that relevant because the question isn't only concerning Christians--morality is absolute (even if we can't make clear positions on it very well) whether the person is a Christian or not.

So if you want to continue discussing this aspect of history in-depth, please do so in PM or an appropriate thread.

My point that Men are to protect their families and that doing so is in no way selfish, even if it means letting other people (even a lot of other people) die, applies to non-Christians as well as Christians, because they are all men, all created in God's image (like every human), and are all held to the same moral boundary whether or not they choose to follow Christ.

In context, 1 Timothy 5:8 is referring to a specific circumstance: Lazy or greedy people who won't provide for their family. It affirms the importance of one's responsibility to one's family, but does not address how other responsibilities compare to that one, so other verses are needed to clearly establish which responsibilities take precedence over others.

I haven't read all of these, but for me this is such a no brainer. Not because I'm patriotic, but because I value lives, and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you people don't. In my personal opinion, a life is a life. Everybody is a person and if I had to sacrifice either billions or two, I would pick two because people are people and they are all equal. God made people equal, and as far as I know that is still the same. I would pick two because then there would be 1000000000 lives saved. Just my two cents.

Sorry. I hadn't heard that information. Thank you for setting me straight, I'd hate to give out bad information.

Well, do you disagree that sometimes someone's responsibilities tip the scale to protecting the two instead?

I think that people have a responsibility to protect their families and care for them, and even if you love them greatly if you are faced with terrorists threatening to kill a random billion or two members from your family, I would have to pick the family members even though I love them dearly and it would break my heart to do so. So I think I would have disagree that the responsibility would not change.

So if I see that my wife (hypothetically--'cause I'm not really married) and two other people are in danger, and for whatever reason I can only save either my wife (whom I would've vowed to protect with my life) or the two strangers, it'd be morally wrong to save my wife instead because that's only half as many lives?

The problem is that we can never really answer 'What-Ifs'. Shouldn't we first see what the Bible says, then live that out through the "What-Ifs"?

Yes, all life has equal value in God's eyes, I agree completely. However, you do not have an equal duty to everyone. God's word is clear that men have a primary responsibility to their own families. However, it also says, as several have pointed out, that He puts leaders over countries.

I come back to my original question--forgetting the number of people, how you personally feel about the issue, how much you would love your wife, children, etc.--a man who is a leader both over his family and his country--which duty comes first, if he must choose between saving them?

I think I've been going for using the smaller analogies to say that I think that family would come first even then...but I can see how it's not quite the same, so sorry.

I think that family should come first even then--unless there's somewhere that the Bible says otherwise. I don't think this means you should subject the people to ridiculous things to keep your family comfortable, or anything else selfish like that, but rather that in taking your leadership position you are not abandoning your family or moving them down in your responsibilities (as far as caring and protection go--obviously a country leader would have less time to spend with family).

*likes Grace's point *

I've just skim-read this entire thread. Very good discussion, here guys.

My opinion is thus: what is country to a man? His family. So by serving his country, he is really serving his family first. If he were to rescue a bus-full of people and forsake saving his own family, I don't believe he is serving his country, because to each man, his family is his country. Without families, there would be no country to defend. So if I split hairs here, there really is no "choice" when it comes to saving a multitude or a family, because in saving your family, you are still saving your country.

A-a-a-a-nd that simple opinion may be about to get blown out of the water, but just thought I'd throw it into the opinion soup to be stirred.

Would your wife want you to save her instead of two, say, innocent children even if you didn't know them?

It's not an easy choice for me, because I love my family but those other two people also have a family and I think in the end I would have to pick the two even though I would probably go insane with grief over the death of the one loved one.

That probably sounds crazy, but that's my opinion.

God bless,
Bethany

To be honest--what my wife wanted wouldn't really affect my responsibility before God (admittedly this is assuming I'm correct in my responsibility and in my probable reaction in such a situation).

Yeah... see, that's my thing. I think it sounds noble to say "I'd sacrifice for other families" (though I would not). That being said, I still don't see where in the Bible we are called to put other families before our own... The Bible says rather plainly that a husband has a responsibility to his wife and children. A very high responsibility.

Yeah, exactly.